>>46948
It seems you misunderstood: I was talking about 'national' not 'nationalist' politics.
What I mean is that the scope over which a woman's leadership role can be useful is way way below the 'national' level: at the level of 'children & kitchen', so to speak. But, more charitably, it can be OK to have them take care of that stupid 'people work' at the communal or municipal level. Over here lots of bored menopausic women get involved into community organizing, neighbor associations, school committees and such bullshit. That can also feed into higher-level politics, but as long as it is kept in check I think that is fine.
>They have to play willing part of the supporting structure
Sure but women are made to follow not to lead. This is a biological invariant. The way in which they will find a part to play in the structure is by being given a place where to fit, where to accommodate themselves, not by being given the reins of the structure. Women who think they are the pack leaders invariably behave badly. And they will never inspire strong men to follow.